Just a follow up from my previous blog post about the mobile phone .
While this video may have exaggerated it, I can now safely and comfortably say that technology is controlling us and has the ability to kill off or change many of the things that were “the norm” in the past. Gone are the days where kids would go out and swing sticks at each other or pretend their hands were guns. We have television and internet to replace that! I remember reading off somewhere that a mother was surprised to find her two young children talking to each other via texting. In their own house no less!
I remember in high school that a teacher of mine had a discussion with my whole year level about the rising popularity with e-books and the decline of traditional, physical books. Apparently, people fear that books will soon die and fade into history, becoming a relic of the past like the ink and quill.
Well, here’s what I think. I don’t think that books will die very soon, in fact, it may take generations for it to cease to exist. As long as people start reading books at a young age and grew up with it, it will stay in our lives. As long as there are a majority of people who prefer to read books (like me) than reading e-books exist, it will stay. When the trend for books start going down, it will be gone because that’s how businesses work. Who can make a profit from a product that is declining in use?
There are however, other factors that prompt us to reject the very idea of its elimination such as how some people like having a collection of books or how nice it feels to close a book when you’ve finished reading it and other small satisfactions like that but I think that the most critical aspect to it is that books have historical significance in relation to writing. It’s been a part of human lives for centuries and it’s very hard to accept getting rid of something that has been with us for a very long time. In fact, it would feel unnatural if it’s gone. I believe that the reason for this is because of writing. When I think of writing, I think of paper and pencil and books are a result of a stack of written paper. Additionally, writing is and always will be an essential skill to have and it goes hand in hand with reading which is also another important skill to have.
On a side note, I sometimes find it very weird when I type “write” instead of “type” when I’m typing out an article.
Personally, I believe that books will continue to stay. It has that particular experience that’s totally different than reading an e-book. Also I’d like to comment that, I find it easier to read the readings when I print them out instead of reading them electronically. For some reason, my eyes hate seeing scanned texts on-screen.
I’m pretty sure many people know the saying, “fame comes at a price.”
For fame, you must trade one of the most important things that any normal human being needs… privacy.
And I don’t only mean privacy in the form of alone time at home or anywhere else like at the park, but also time with your friends and even when you go out to have dinner with your mom that you haven’t seen for a long time. Sadly, once you’re famous, the chance to have or do any of that is very slim or you may never have it at all. You’ll be having the paparazzi swarming around you like moths to a flame, and these moths are very hard to get rid of. I get it, it’s part of their job and they get paid to do it.
But hey, in the end, you’ll be filthy, stinkin’ rich, right? Sure, you’ll have to deal with some people trying to get a photo of you everywhere you go, but it shouldn’t be that bad.
Wrong.
Since I was a kid, I always thought that being a celebrity would be pretty sweet. For me, I loved acting and if I get paid thousands of dollars to act out a character on TV, that would be the most awesome thing ever. That dream’s now dead though.
Looking at all these celebrities in the world, I always wondered why they act the way they do like doing drugs or other things that kill themselves on the inside. However, I never really thought about it further to answer my own question since I’m not really interested in celebrities and such. Until today.
Today, out of boredom, I watched a few paparazzi videos and I realized it’s not JUST people taking your photo, but some of these people will try to rile you up by asking you uncomfortable questions or just saying mean things. Of course, these people may just be normal people who don’t like you for their own reasons. But, they will try to get you to react in the worse way possible. And once you do, they love it. The paparazzi also love it. It’s like a scandal ‘cuz it’ll garner interest on whatever magazine or website they work for.
Can you imagine yourself having to deal with this?
I have to admit, it’s really bad to lash out at them even if you get pissed and some might say they deserve it for fame since the paparazzi do make them famous… but there’s a limit y’know? Props to Jessica for having the patience of a saint. But I do wonder, what if she was controversial or even had haters who’d spew out really mean things at her face? How would she react? There’s another pap video about Justin Bieber lashing out at one of them but he had a reason to. Sadly, it’s often always one side of the story because that reason gets edited out. Here’s the video.
Now watch this FOX video and find the difference.
The dude crying assault, I mean seriously, he’s really big sized so I don’t think JB could push him THAT hard. It’s not like he punched him in the stomach lol.
Seriously though, should something be done about this? I can see why some child stars go downhill now (Suri Cruise being called the B-word by the paps, fo’ real). But it’s still very debatable. The paparazzi do make them famous. And it is the celebrity’s fault for reacting that way.
On another note, it’s really sad to see Miley Cyrus the way she is now. I feel like her current behaviour may have been caused by the media and the paparazzi. I have never been a fan of her, but it’s sad seeing her like this. Can’t imagine what her dad might be thinking… He might be feeling guilty for bringing her into his world.
A part of me always felt that the mobile phone we have today is a nuisance. Got nothing to say at the table when you’re with other people? Get the phone out and go onto social media apps! Ironic. Having a conversation with someone? Oh wait, hear that? You just got a text! 10 minutes later, what were we talking about again? Sitting in the car with a driver? Oh dear god, is that a message beep!? Jesus Christ, keep your eyes on the road!
I know I sound like some naggy person but these things do happen and frankly, I’m quite annoyed with it. I mean, I wouldn’t mind texting if it were just for simple short stuff like, “I need sugar. P.s. get me some fruit loops” or “what time is the party at?” but for a conversation through texting? You must be out of your mind. Face-to-face > texting.
So, recently, I watched a video called, “A World Without Mobile.” As the title suggests, it is literally about a world without mobile but still has the features and apps from the mobile. Fun video (fun world too if it existed), but ridiculously absurd. If the world didn’t have the mobile phone, I’d imagine that we’d be living exactly as we are right now, considering that the computer still exists. The only difference is that more people would probably prefer to stay at home to use their computers and we’d be more isolated from each other because we can access communication through emails, skype, internet. Another difference would be the erasure of the phrase, “No phones at the table” and an increase of this one, “GET YOUR ASS DOWN HERE FOR DINNER OR I WILL WHOOP IT!”
Got me to thinkin’, what if the world had no computers, TVs, PlayStations, XBox’s, network cables, etc.? We’d be living in the 20’s again except… no films. Egads! We might have to go to law courts to get entertainment! How horrifying. I’m gonna stop there.
I still wished that the phone didn’t progress so much. Honestly, I’d prefer having it stay as a device for calling or texting. All that other social media and mini-games? Just no. But oh well. With all good things comes bad things too. That’s how the world works.
Lots of readings last/this week with the word ideology in them. Here’s an idea a thought, the world we live in – our society, our lives – was constructed by ideas in some way.
The things we use these days were once ideas. The computer, the television, the car, the camera etc. etc.
The things we watch and read these days were ideas.
Some of the things we know were just ideas.
Still don’t get what I mean?
Alright, you know Batman? He’s an idea. Whoever thought of Batman wanted to share that idea (Batman) so he used an idea (comic books) to share Batman with the rest of the world.
I have another thought that when someone thinks of an idea and physically produces it to others, it can inspire others to have an idea.
I also believe that history and ideology are linked. For example, way back when, people probably used leaves for number 2. Someone thought of toilet paper (thank you creator of toilet paper) and now everyone uses toilet paper instead of leaves. And it is ideal that you use toilet paper and not leaves because if you use leaves then you’ll probably get responses like “what? omg. ew.” This might be a different case if you were alive xxxx years ago when using leaves was the “norm”.
To sum up, ideologies fosters development which takes time and is recorded in history. These ideas will then become ubiquitous.
This week’s required reading was about design fiction and I really enjoyed reading about it.
It made me think though, are the stuff that we use in our daily lives a product of design fiction? Like the phone. So many years ago, one in a thousand households owned one telephone (not real statistic). Back then, the people probably thought that such a thing was bizarre and uncommon. Nowadays, everybody above the age of seven owns a mobile phone and some even consider it as a part of their body to the extent that they admit if they lose it they would die.
In a way, I suppose DF COULD be the basis for new inventions in this day and age. That kinda defeats the purpose of it being fictional and creating a whole different world, though but still, what if? What if one day, there was this teleportation device outlet outside of your home nearby that allows you to teleport to other outlets? You’d have to pay a fee though. Some might get nauseous from using it. Planes and cars and other common transportation we see now would probably be gone and the thought of using them would be considered prehistoric. Also, everyone would get fatter.
OR what if one day, there was a device that allows you to enter a game’s reality or any kind of vitual reality? You could be in space, without being in space. You could have a totally awesome zombie apocalypse setting and bash zombies. Even better, a Jedi battle with a virtual light saber and crazy Jedi powers!? Of course, there would be consequences like making you see hallucinations from extended use ’cause your brain got confused. You could die like this guy.
While researching about piracy a few months ago, I came upon a video mentioning that the Game of Thrones was the most pirated TV show ever.
Curious, I went ahead and bought a Season 1 box set to find out why this was the case. I had to know, why is this show the most pirated?
So I popped disc one into my Blu-ray player and boy, I was not prepared for what this show had to offer.
The show’s first episode puts you straight into the story. There’s no narrator to tell you what was going on or to introduce you to this vast, imaginary world and explain how things work. Nope, you’re on your own to figure it all out yourself. It does however, introduce it to you visually and this is done immediately when it shows you the disembodied bodies laying in the snow as if it’s telling you that this world is brutal and you’d best prepared yourself for it.
And then the chase begins. Running, running, running, running, are you ready yet? If not, too bad, you’re still going to see some gloriously gory stuff in action. By the way, it won’t stop there, oh no, you’ll see more of that if you continue watching. The show then cuts to its opening sequence, and after that we are introduced to its various range of characters, mainly the protagonists and there are a lot of them which classifies this show as multi-protagonist.
After the first episode ended, I still felt a little lost and confused. I mean there was just so much to take in, my brain had to have time to organize and make sense of what had just transpired. Then, I moved on to the second episode, the third and so on.
There’s no mistaking it, this story was set to reveal more and more, episode by episode. With so many main characters with their own respecting stories, you have to think about them as a whole and weave it altogether yourself so you can make sense out of it.
Here are my thoughts after watching the whole season:
My first impression was, “Wow, this show has a really big budget. So many actors… such high production values. You don’t see many TV shows that have this.”
What took me by surprise was the nudity. I was not informed about the nudity. Wait, not JUST nudity. Throw in the full-on sex into the mix and you’ve created this slightly awkward atmosphere when your parents are watching the show with you.
So much chocolate, wasted! Because fake blood has chocolate and stuff…
How did they get the money to make all those props and sets and hire all these great actors!?
Why is the Game of Thrones the most pirated TV show in the past 2 years? Well, the answer is simple, it’s just a really good show. Some may like it, some won’t, but apparently the majority of the public do like it so it gets downloaded the most.
Am I going to continue watching it? Heck yeah I am. After making sense of the whole story/world, am I just going to discard it out of my mind? Besides, those cliffhangers make me want more. I’m already lookin’ forward to Season 4.
This week’s required reading was about Chris Aygris’ theories of action, double loop learning and organizational learning.
Aygris and Schon suggests that there are two theories of action which are espoused theory and theory-in-use.
Espoused theory: “The words we use to convey what we do or what we would like others to think we do.”
Example:
“We might explain our sudden rush out of the office to others, or even to ourselves at some level, by saying that a ‘crisis’ had arisen with one of‘our’ clients.”
Theories-in-use: “The theory that actually governs his actions.”
Example:
“The theory-in-use might be quite different.We may have become bored and tired by the paper work or meeting and felt that a quick trip out to an apparently difficult situation would bring welcome relief.”
Then there’s single and double-loop learning. Single loop learning involves looking for a different strategy when the current approach is unable to achieve the goal. The new strategy must work within the confines of the governing variables. The current goals, objectives, values and beliefs are unquestioned and will remain unchanged. To put it simply, strategy changes, everything else, no.
Double-loop learning, however, allows the governing variables to come under criticism and to be changed if the need arises. This results in a change in the way strategies are made, so in other words, the conceptual framework changes.
Finally, there’s Model I and Model II, which inhibit and enhances double-loop learning, respectively.
From what I understand, Model I has an autocratic style of leadership because decisions are more likely to be made objectively and are imposed upon others. Its characteristics include showing weaknesses like emotion, incompetence, ineptitude to be frowned upon which in turn creates a need to suppress negative feelings.There is a higher chance for resistance against changing goals to “win” in a sense that the goal is expected to be made a success and if not, it is seen as a “loss”.
Model II, on the other hand, has a more participative style of leadership because control is shared and opinions and inquiries are encouraged. Theories are tried and tested and information circulates within the organisation easily.
It’s interesting to see that Model I seems to reject innovation whereas Model II enhances it because it allows more creativity due to open communication and more freedom of choice.
